DSLR Advice

Hawkins

It seems to me that today's cameras just don't last. New models keep popping up that current models get outdated fast. So my question here is if I have the budget around $5000 for a DSLR body in the next 10 years, is Nikon D3S a good choice, or is there any other better choices out there?

Basically, I don't think that my wife will allow me to buy another camera in the next 10 years. :dunno

ziggy53

Hawkins wrote:

It seems to me that today's cameras just don't last. New models keep popping up that current models get outdated fast. So my question here is if I have the budget around $5000 for a DSLR body in the next 10 years, is Nikon D3S a good choice, or is there any other better choices out there?

Basically, I don't think that my wife will allow me to buy another camera in the next 10 years.

The Nikon D3S is arguably one of the best camera bodies on the planet, but even 4 years from now it will probably be somewhat feature poor compared to what you will be able to get at that time. It will still provide great images if you give it appropriate lighting, the best lenses and appropriate processing and presentation.

With a $5000USD budget I would try to find a good used Nikon D3 and invest the rest in good lenses and a couple of good speedlights and flash modifiers.

Trust me, the money will still go very quickly.

Then plan on another camera body as you can justify it.

The Mack

Do you NEED a D3s?

highly doubtful.


There is no reason why any dslr can't make it several years. D50's and D70's are still being used.

craig_d

Hawkins wrote:

It seems to me that today's cameras just don't last. New models keep popping up that current models get outdated fast. So my question here is if I have the budget around $5000 for a DSLR body in the next 10 years, is Nikon D3S a good choice, or is there any other better choices out there?

Basically, I don't think that my wife will allow me to buy another camera in the next 10 years.

Well... imagine that you bought a 3 MP Nikon D1 or 4 MP Canon 1D ten years ago and you're just now thinking about an upgrade. There was no better option at the time, but I wouldn't accept being saddled with a digital camera body for ten years any more than I'd want to be using the same desktop computer for ten years. (Let's see, ten years ago I think my office computer was a 200 MHz Pentium 2 with 128 MB of RAM and a 2 GB hard disk, running Windows 2000...)

What I would be inclined to do here is bargain a little. How about buying a $2500 camera and setting the other $2500 aside for five years in some very safe, interest-generating investment (a CD, perhaps) so that five years from now you can buy another camera for $2500 and have some money left over? If you can get her to buy off on that plan, then I'd suggest either a Nikon D700 or Canon 5D Mark II. The Sony A900 may also be a good choice.

One issue is what photographic needs you have that are making you lean towards the Nikon D3s. If it has something you need that the D700 lacks, then okay, maybe living with a D3s for ten years is better than settling for a camera that doesn't do what you want. If you can fill us in on why you are thinking of the D3s, it may help us to give better advice.

Another question: You say this is your budget for a camera body. What about lenses, are they a separate budget? Or do you already have a collection of good Nikon lenses?

craig_d

The Mack wrote:

There is no reason why any dslr can't make it several years. D50's and D70's are still being used.

The D70 is only six years old, and the D50 less than that. Ten years means the D1, which was only 3 MP.

Ekaj

Well, how much did the d1 cost when it first came on the market?

;P

The Mack

craig_d wrote:

The D70 is only six years old, and the D50 less than that. Ten years means the D1, which was only 3 MP.

and I'm willing to be they'll be around for another 4 years.

who keeps a camera for 10 years in this day and age, honestly, w/ it being their only camera.

NikonsandVstroms

The Mack wrote:

and I'm willing to be they'll be around for another 4 years.

who keeps a camera for 10 years in this day and age, honestly, w/ it being their only camera.

I have had my Canon EOS 650 well since it was new, but for digital I had the D50 for about 5 years, and now the E-420/S5/D700 all for about 12-18 months. Hopefully those 3 last me a bit but there are so many fun new cameras out there

Hawkins

Actually, I've set aside a budget of $10,000 for a full set gear, of which $5000 is for the body. I think I love especially the photo effect in low light conditions, that's why I think the D3s is a good choice.

And I think that as long as the PC display resolution won't go too much beyond 1680 in the next 5 years, the D3s' 12MP may last for a while, a 10-year period is too much thou, I know.

craig_d

Hawkins wrote:

Actually, I've set aside a budget of $10,000 for a full set gear, of which $5000 is for the body. I think I love especially the photo effect in low light conditions, that's why I think the D3s is a good choice.

And I think that as long as the PC display resolution won't go too much beyond 1680 in the next 5 years, the D3s' 12MP may last for a while, a 10-year period is too much thou, I know.

If you only care about looking at pictures on your computer display, then resolution is not an issue. Most computer displays are 2 MP or less these days.

Hmm, if it were me with a $10K budget for a new camera system from scratch, I'd probably still stick with the $2500 camera and get a nice lens collection plus other accessories. Spending $10K wouldn't be hard at all.

Unless you're into shooting 10 frames per second, need to shoot videos, or have a serious need for environmental sealing, I don't really see what the D3s offers you that's worth the additional cost over the D700 (which is also a great low-light camera). But it's your money.

Scott_Quier

The the amatuer/hobbiest, there are really only two reasons to upgrade

1. You current camera(s) are not providing the technology/feature you NEED to get an image. In other words, your current bodies are limiting you in your work and there's one on the market that seems to promise a capability that will make creating that image either possible or, at least, easier.
2. Upgrade lust - this is just as valid a reason to upgrade as #1

What is not a valid reason to upgrade - at least IMNSHO, is because there's a newer, better, faster camera just arrived on the market. If what you have in hand is still working well, is providing you all the image detail you could want (croppability, for example), and is not limiting you creatively .... save your $$ or put it against a good long term investment like good/great glass.

So, yeah, what Ziggy says - you don't need the bleeding edge body. Step back from that edge a bit and take the money saved and apply it towards lighting and excellent glass. Unless you are one that emotionally needs the latest and greatest thing, I do think you will be much happier going that route.

Brett1000

Hawkins wrote:

Actually, I've set aside a budget of $10,000 for a full set gear, of which $5000 is for the body. I think I love especially the photo effect in low light conditions, that's why I think the D3s is a good choice.

And I think that as long as the PC display resolution won't go too much beyond 1680 in the next 5 years, the D3s' 12MP may last for a while, a 10-year period is too much thou, I know.

I agree with the rest, spend less on the body and more on the lens and lighting equipment (and knowledge !). Of course if you're rich with lots of disposable income go ahead and blow it all on the high-margin bodies,
the camera manufacturers will love you!

The Mack

spend $5000 and give me the rest. I need a few lenses for upcoming seasons.

cab.in.boston

Trying to figure out how to spend $10k on gear is a great problem to have!

IMO, any camera that produces great images that you are happy with now will, barring part failure, continue to produce great images in the future. Nothing that comes out in the future is going to make any current body any less good. As Scott pointed out, you will likely have gear lust that will make you want to upgrade in the future, but you wouldn't really "need" to unless and until your body failed. I'd guess that anyone shooting any DSLR with a mechanical shutter extensively over 10 years is going to experience shutter failure at some point.

I would guess that I will never outgrow 12MP. You can make some decent sized prints from that, although it does limit your cropping ability. Not that I wouldn't use a 15MP (or more) DSLR, but I doubt I could ever find a reason that I would truly need that. The vast majority of my shooting is for putting pictures online for family and friends, and occasionally printing something, but I can't see going bigger than 20" or so. Your needs will vary, naturally.

I'd repeat what others have said and recommend spending most of your budget on glass. A D700, 14-24, 24-70, and 70-200 plus maybe a really great tripod system or an 85/1.4, etc... there's ~$10k right there.

Qarik

Hawkins wrote:

It seems to me that today's cameras just don't last. New models keep popping up that current models get outdated fast. So my question here is if I have the budget around $5000 for a DSLR body in the next 10 years, is Nikon D3S a good choice, or is there any other better choices out there?

Basically, I don't think that my wife will allow me to buy another camera in the next 10 years.

Yes camera bodies get outdated fast...but there is soemthing to consider here. There was a megapixel race for while..then the race kinda ended when the pros/manufacturers figured out that more is not neccessarilty better. There is and will continue to be an ISO race but the D3S is pretty much near the finish line on that I believe. You can practically shoot in the dark with that. I don't think overall image quality has much room to improve. The features that pros care about I think are largely very near their natural endpoint imo especailly in the the higher end models. I think dynamic range is one of last areas where there is some considereable room for improvement. Aside from MAJOR change in standards like full frame sensor size increasing (which would change everything) I think we are near the point of diminishing returns wrt to features pros may care about on their bodies.

So imo the D3S for example is everything one practically hope for in camera body and would likley stay that way for many years.

Photometric

Qarik wrote:

Yes camera bodies get outdated fast...but there is soemthing to consider here. There was a megapixel race for while..then the race kinda ended when the pros/manufacturers figured out that more is not neccessarilty better. There is and will continue to be an ISO race but the D3S is pretty much near the finish line on that I believe. You can practically shoot in the dark with that. I don't think overall image quality has much room to improve. The features that pros care about I think are largely very near their natural endpoint imo especailly in the the higher end models. I think dynamic range is one of last areas where there is some considereable room for improvement. Aside from MAJOR change in standards like full frame sensor size increasing (which would change everything) I think we are near the point of diminishing returns wrt to features pros may care about on their bodies.

So imo the D3S for example is everything one practically hope for in camera body and would likley stay that way for many years.

I pretty much agree, especially if you pair it up with the 24-70 f2.8 and the 70-200 VRII f2.8. I think that's an extremely strong combination. I would see that and the 85mm f1.4 being the perfect lineup, maybe a 50mm f1.4, but there's not much more to ask for, and just about within the quoted budget (almost)

catspaw

Photometric wrote:

I pretty much agree, especially if you pair it up with the 24-70 f2.8 and the 70-200 VRII f2.8. I think that's an extremely strong combination. I would see that and the 85mm f1.4 being the perfect lineup, maybe a 50mm f1.4, but there's not much more to ask for, and just about within the quoted budget (almost)

Ditto that, but tack on a 20mm prime for landscapes and you'll be set

unless you want to get into macro. or lensbabies. or Diana attachments. or or or or ....

zoomer

I don't see where you said what you are going to use the camera for.

To me buying a still camera with video is nuts. Is you want to take movies get a movie camera.

The D3 only gives you dual memory card slots and faster frame rate.

Get the D700.

Photometric

zoomer wrote:

I don't see where you said what you are going to use the camera for.

To me buying a still camera with video is nuts. Is you want to take movies get a movie camera.

The D3 only gives you dual memory card slots and faster frame rate.

Get the D700.

He was mentioning the D3S, which has amazing ISO performance.

Tee Why

Before you spend $10,000, what are you looking to do with the camera?
Why do you want very high ISO capacity?
What is your skill level?
Why do you want to keep a dslr for 10 years?
Lastly, why contemplate getting a camera that will only be viewed on a computer screen (72dpi IIRC) if you aren't going to make prints?

Lastly, if you want a camera that is worth something at the end of 10 years, I'd recommend looking at Leica M9.

zoomer

Photometric wrote:

He was mentioning the D3S, which has amazing ISO performance.

Thanks, I knew that.
I was steering him another direction.

Hawkins

Qarik wrote:

Yes camera bodies get outdated fast...but there is soemthing to consider here. There was a megapixel race for while..then the race kinda ended when the pros/manufacturers figured out that more is not neccessarilty better. There is and will continue to be an ISO race but the D3S is pretty much near the finish line on that I believe. You can practically shoot in the dark with that. I don't think overall image quality has much room to improve. The features that pros care about I think are largely very near their natural endpoint imo especailly in the the higher end models. I think dynamic range is one of last areas where there is some considereable room for improvement. Aside from MAJOR change in standards like full frame sensor size increasing (which would change everything) I think we are near the point of diminishing returns wrt to features pros may care about on their bodies.

So imo the D3S for example is everything one practically hope for in camera body and would likley stay that way for many years.

Thanks, points taken.

Hawkins

Photometric wrote:

I pretty much agree, especially if you pair it up with the 24-70 f2.8 and the 70-200 VRII f2.8. I think that's an extremely strong combination. I would see that and the 85mm f1.4 being the perfect lineup, maybe a 50mm f1.4, but there's not much more to ask for, and just about within the quoted budget (almost)

Yes, here's my planned gear list.

D3S
14-24
24-70
70-200 VR
Sigma 120-300 f2.8
SB-600
if there is still cash left: 85mm f1.4 or a SU800 flash commander

Hawkins

zoomer wrote:

I don't see where you said what you are going to use the camera for.

To me buying a still camera with video is nuts. Is you want to take movies get a movie camera.

The D3 only gives you dual memory card slots and faster frame rate.

Get the D700.

I am going to live in Toronto Canada next year. So I think I will use it for indoor sports, snowy and sunshine landscape (a pro body may thus worth it), night scene snapshot without a tripod (i am in Hong Kong at the moment). D3s has a better build and 1~2 more fstop than the D700. Moreover, I won't buy a D700 at the moment when it is expected that the D700s will come soon.

It seems to me that this is the only camera which is a FF camera (such that can do better landscape shooting) while can shoot sports under low-light condition and has a pro body to better resist wheather of various kinds.

My only concern is that whether D3S can do landscape and portrait shooting just as good as a D700 or Canon 5D Mk II, as it seems to me that all the reviews are almost exclusively for the ISO comparison under low light but lacking comparson on landscape and portrait shooting.

Photometric

Hawkins wrote:

Yes, here's my planned gear list.

D3S
14-24
24-70
70-200 VR
Sigma 120-300 f2.8
SB-600
if there is still cash left: 85mm f1.4 or a SU800 flash commander

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the D3S should have a flash commander built in. I am not sure if you will need the SU800.

Also, Unless you're doing dedicated portrait work, between the 24-70 Nikon and the other 2 lenses, the 85mm f1.4 will be very limiting on a focal range, although I'd like to see how that combo shoots in low-light.

Hoping your purchase(s) work out and you enjoy your equipment for many years!

cab.in.boston

Photometric wrote:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the D3S should have a flash commander built in. I am not sure if you will need the SU800.

It does not. The D3 bodies do not have a pop-up flash, which is what is used as the built-in commander. They do need either an on-board SB-800/900 or SU-800.

Photometric

cab.in.boston wrote:

It does not. The D3 bodies do not have a pop-up flash, which is what is used as the built-in commander. They do need either an on-board SB-800/900 or SU-800.

You're right, I'm going to claim it was the dentist visit that addled my brain. Thanks for the clarification Cab...